Meeting Minutes
Present: Commissioners Borawski, Coffin, DiIorio, Jenkins, F. Phillips, L.
Phillips, and Walter, Chairman Young, Village Manager Doughty and Planner
Kendig.
Commissioner Gould arrived at 8:32 pm.
Note: Commissioner
L. Phillips volunteered to record minutes in light of the recent resignation of
Secretary Bendoff.
A.
Park District Buffalo Creek
Park Special Use Amendment
Public Hearing was called to order at 8:03 by Chairman Young. Village Manager Doughty read public notice and swore in those wishing to testify.
¨
Park
Board Chairman Lee Bassett noted three items to be amended and justification
for each:
1.
Delete
number 3 of Ordinance 93-O-16 prohibiting use of a public address system. Mr. Bassett indicated that most events are
weddings and require same;
2.
Strike
the requirement that a Park District representative be present for all events
based prior history of peaceable events and contractual agreements with
customers outlining appropriate use of the park;
3.
Delete
the season indicating Spring to Fall use of the Park, as outlined in Ordinance
93-O-16, number 6, thereby allowing year round use of Buffalo Creek Park by
permit.
With
no further witnesses, Chairman Young closed the public hearing on this matter
at 8:11 pm
B.
Monotony and Housing Design
Standards
Public Hearing was called to order at 8:12 by Chairman Young. Village Manager Doughty read public notice and swore in those wishing to testify.
¨
Norma
Sayles, Proprietor, Village Tavern, stated that parking and bathroom facilities
at the Tavern are used by guests attending events in Buffalo Creek Park and
requested information regarding the intent of the Village with regard to the
3.6 acre parcel immediately adjacent to Buffalo Creek Park to the North. Mrs. Sayles suggested that purchase of that
property might allow more parking for the Park.
Dr. Young asked that Mrs. Sayles reiterate these
comments during the general meeting, as the public hearing regarding the Park
had been closed.
¨
Architectural
Board Chairman John Staub referred to his comments as outlined in his memo to
the Plan Commission dated 10/25/01. Mr.
Staub’s memo indicated his review of the monotony code commented that he would
add the following (paraphrased):
1.
Consistency
of roof pitches within a single unit;
2.
Require
applicant to provide elevations including homes on either side;
3.
Add
varied setbacks;
4.
Side
load garages preferable to front load.
His
memo also indicated altering topography, particularly on “flat farm lands” to
break up monotony and definition of “production builder” as a builder of ten or
more homes within 2000 feet.
Manager
Doughty read Planner Kendig’s draft of the Monotony and Housing Design
Standards dated 11/06/01. Discussion
ensued. Comments, recommendations follow.
p. 1: Control Options: Commissioner Coffin noted the term “pallet” may need
definition. Manager Doughty suggested the verbiage “preapproved elevations” replace
“housing pallet approval”.
Commissioner Gould arrived
at 8:32 pm.
p. 1: Mandatory Quality Design Criteria
A. Window and Door Trim:
Discussion included questions by Commissioners Coffin and L. Phillips as
to whether the language might be too vague for enforcement. Commissioner F. Phillips requested
clarification regarding similar treatments on all sides, using shutters as an
example. Planner Kendig responded
indicating shutters on the front of a home would require shutters on all other
windows, except in the case of a window “traditionally” left without such
treatment. Commissioner DiIorio
recommended changing the terms window and door to the plural to clarify that
windows, doors and trim are included.
B. Building Materials: Manager Doughty suggested
the Commission might want to incorporate the term percentage into this
paragraph to insure the appropriate amount of stone, brick, etc. is carried
throughout the structure. The terms
“quality and style” were also suggested for use in clarifying this
paragraph. It was also recommended that
this paragraph include “architectural enhancements or projections”. Commissioners felt the term “avoided” should
be replaced with more committed language using wording which indicates what is
“required”.
C. Roof Overhangs: An
average of 18 inches was felt to be too large by several Commissioners. Commissioner DiIorio suggested replacing
“average of 18 inches” with “minimum of 12 inch overhang”. Manager Doughty asked that “Review” be
stricken from what should read “Architectural Board”.
p. 2: Design Criteria
B. Floor Plans and Elevations: Many Commissioners agreed the term avoided was not strong enough and should be replaced with language that “requires” compliance.
p. 3 Design Criteria, continued
F. Lot Frontage and Size: Commissioner Walter suggested rewording of the second sentence in this paragraph for clarification.
p. 3 Overall Design
Commissioner Walter noted that “B” should be changed to “A”, and “C” should be changed to “B”.
Manager Doughty suggested that criteria for a “production builder” established and that the term be replaced with something more appropriate.
Commissioner Coffin asked if the Village would hire a “Plan Reviewer” to relieve staff. It was generally believed that the added load on the Architectural Board would be reasonable.
With
no further comment, Chairman Young closed the Public Hearing at 9:34 pm.
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Young at 9:35 pm.
An
unidentified resident asked for clarification on “minimum home size”. Manager Doughty stated that case law
prevents dictating home size. The
resident indicated her concern that a neighboring property owner intended to
build a home which would appear to be a “shed” in her neighborhood. She did not indicate the property
location.
Corrections:
Commissioner
Jenkins noted the following:
Page
2, Paragraphs 6 and 10: Change the
dates for Public Hearing from November 2 to November 6, 2001.
Page
2, Paragraph 8: “Village Planner
Doughty” should read “Village Manager Doughty”.
No
other corrections were noted.
Commissioner Walter moved to accept the minutes as amended. Commissioner Borawski seconded the motion.
Ayes all. Motion carried.
IV.
OLD BUSINESS
A.
Park District Buffalo Creek
Park Special Use Amendment
Resident and business owner Norma Sayles reiterated her question regarding the intent of the Village regarding the 3.6 acre parcel North of Buffalo Creek Park. Chairman Young referred Mrs. Sayles to the Village Board.
Motion
to recommend an amendment to the Village Code relative to the special use
granted regarding activities in Buffalo Creek Park allowing events using a
public address system, year round use,
and activities unsupervised by a Park District representative of made by
Commissioner Borawski. Seconded by
Commissioner Walter. Ayes all. Motion
carried.
Planner
Kendig has submitted a Draft Monotony Code dated November 6, 2001. He will rework the draft based on
suggestions of the Commission and John Staub, Architectural Board Chair, as
noted in the minutes of the public hearing and including the following comments
made by Commissioners.
Commissioner
Gould expressed her support for John Staub’s suggestion that applicants provide
elevations of homes (existing or proposed) on either side of an applicant’s
parcel. The Commission was largely in
favor of the inclusion.
Much
discussion occurred regarding whether the Standards were to be guidelines or
ordinance. Commissioner Phillips
suggested the mandatory section be
recommended to the Board as ordinance, but the remainder is preserved in some
form for distribution to applicants and the Commission. Commissioner Gould recommended just changing
the order of presentation such that
design approval and mandatory criteria are placed first, followed by
recommended design criteria.
Commissioner
Coffin asked if these standards may conflict with any current part of Village
Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Manager
Doughty noted that code will be revised and the new standards will replace any
prior language in the Plan or Code.
Commissioner
DiIorio noted that 20 units or 30 percent of a development (page 4, paragraph
1) is possibly too high and recommended 10 units or 20% as more
appropriate. He also added that no more
than 3 lots in a row should be sold to one builder. On page 3, Commissioner DiIorio suggested that the section on
“Garage Placement and Orientation” include a restriction allowing only 2 bays
of a garage to project beyond the main structure. Also her recommends removing lot lines from the center of a road
and making roads common property, while maintaining setbacks from the lot
lines.
Commissioner
Walter noted that similar units along a street face should be place further
apart than 6 units, as stated in paragraph A, p. 4. After some discussion,
the Commission agreed that
blocks of 10 homes without repetition and the addition of a sentence
indicating that “no house in a development can be of the same shape, style or
color”.
Commissioner
Borawski recommended the word “This” in paragraph C, p. 4 be changed to
“Review” for clarity.
Manager Doughty revisited last month’s discussion of cubic versus square footage in setting bulk standards. Staff was unable to provide further information on this topic, but will try to do so for the December meeting.
Commissioner
L. Phillips reminded the Commission that we also needed further information
about landscape volume. She further expressed concern that the Commission is
sure to incorporate that factor so as not to punish “old growth” areas from
improving property values when the real goal was to prevent huge structures
from rising out of corn fields.
Commissioner Gould expressed her concern that the landscape factor may
not work as she felt individuals may cut down trees planted by prior owners.
Motion to table the LG Station Sub-Area Plan review until the February 2002 meeting was made by Commissioner Walter and seconded by Commissioner Borawski. Ayes all. Motion carried.
Village Manager Doughty noted that there was a possibility of a high-end tennis and bath type club for the Iverson property and asked for comments. Many Commissioners were in favor of such a possibility. Commissioner Gould suggested she favors “something for the residents” such as a Sunset Foods, dry cleaner, movie rental store, etc. Commissioner L. Phillips questioned whether a club such as that mentioned by Manager Doughty could be sustained with Forest Grove less than a mile away. Further discussion required at December meeting.
Commissioner
Gould questioned whether the form allows for Long Grove to “learn from our
mistakes”. No conclusion reached.
Chairman Young complimented Commissioner Gould on the work she has done to answer many of the questions regarding this issue. A report by Commissioner Gould based on her discussions with several experts in the field, including Jim Frayn, V.P., Manhard Consulting and Ed Hoak, Long Grove Trustee was distributed to the Commission.
Manager
Doughty suggested that still more questions should be answered and offered to
distribute to the commission a numbered list of Commissioner Gould’s questions
and to revisit the subject with the Village Board to determine how to proceed.
V.
NEW BUSINESS – none
VI.
COMMITTEE REPORTS – none
VII.
PLANNER’S REPORT –none
VIII.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT –none
IX.
ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
Motion to adjourn made by Commissioner F. Phillips, seconded by Commissioner Walter. Ayes All. Meeting adjourned at 11:27 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Lisa
Schultz Phillips